MS ISO/IEC TR 10037 : 1995

STANDARDS & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MALAYSIA

MS 76 : 1972ICS : 91.100.15

SPECIFICATION FOR BRICKS AND BLOCKS OF FIREDBRICKEARTH, CLAY OR SHALEPART 2 : METRIC UNITS

MALAYSIANSTANDARD

© Copyright

© SIRIM. No part of this publication may be photocopied or otherwise reproducedwithout the prior permission in writing of SIRIM

SPECIFICATION FOR

BRICKS AND BLOCKS OF FIREDBRICKEARTH, CLAY OR SHALE

PART 2. METRIC UNITS

MS 76:1972

© Copyright

MS 76: 1972

This Malaysian Standard,which had been approvedby the CivilEngineeringand Building ConstructionIndustryStandardsCommitteeandendorsedby the StandardsCouncil, was published under the authorityof the StandardsCouncil in June, 1972.

SIM wishes to draw attention to the fact that this MalaysianStandard does not purport to include all the necessaryprovisions ofa contract.

Malaysian Standards are subject to periodical review to keepabreast of progress in the industries concerned. Suggestionsfor im-provementswill be recorded and in due course brought to the noticeof the Committee chargedwith the revision of the Standardsto whichthey refer,

The following SIM referencesrelate to the work on this standard:

CommitteeReference: SIM/I/7/018

Draft for Comment: D21(ISC7)

2

MS 76: 1972

CONTENTSPage

Committee Representation... 7

Foreword ... ... ... 8

SPECIFICATIQN

1. Scope 14

Chapter 1. Bricks and Blocks for Walling

Section One: General

2. General ... ... ... ... ... 114

3. Definitions ... ... ... ... ... 14

4. Formats ... ... ... ... ... 16

5. Patterns ... ... ... ... ... 18

6. Compliance for Dimensions (Bricks) ... 18

7. Compliance for Dimensions (Blocks) ... 20

8. Compliance for Out of Squareness(Blocks) 20

9. Compliance for Bowing or Twisting (Blocks) 20

10. Strength and Absorption ... ... ... 21

Section Two: Specific ClausesSub-Section A: Facing and Common Bricks and Blocks of

Ordinary Quality

11. Finish ... ... ... ... 23

12. Strength ... ... ... 23

13. Soluble Salts Content ... 24

14. Liability to Efflorescence ... 24

3

MS 76: 1972

Sub-Section B: Facing and Common Bricks and. Blocks of

Special Quality

15. Finish ... ... ... ... 24

16. Strength ... ... ... 24

17. Soluble Salts Content ... 25

18. Liability to Efflorescence ... 25

Sub-Section C: Bricks and Blocks for Internal Walls

19. Finish ... ... ... ... 25

20. Strength ... ... ... 25

211. Soluble Salts Content ... 26

22. Liability to Elrlorescence ... 26

Chapter 2. Hollow Blocks for Structural Floors and Roofs.

23. General ... ... ... 26

24. Formats ... ... ... ... 26

25. Compliance for Dimensions ... 28

26. Compliance for Out of Squareness 28

27. Compliance for Bowing or Twisting 28

28. Finish ... ... ... ... 28

29. Strength ... ... ... 29

30. Soluble Salts Content ... 29

31. Liability to Efflorescence ... ... 29

4

MS 76: 1972

Chapter 3. Sampling Procedure and Test Methods

32. General 29

33. Samples ... ... 29

34. Method of Sampling ... ... ... ... ... 31

35. Determination of Dimension (Bricks) ... ... ... 34

36. Determination of Dimension (Blocks) ... ... ... 34

37. Deterinination of Out of Squareness(Blocks) ... ... 34

38. Determination of Bowing or Twisting (Blocks) ... 35

39. Determination of CompressiveStrength ... ... ... 35

40. Water Absorption Tests ... ... ... ... ... 45

41. Soluble Salts Analysis ... ... ... ... ... 48

42. Elllorcsccnce Test ... ... ... ... ... ... 53

43. Compliance ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 55

44. Procedure in the Event of Dispute ... ... ... 55

45. Cost of Testing ... ... ... ... ... ... 56

Appendix A. Application of Works Quality Control Schemefor Dimensions ... ... ... ... ... 57

Appendix B. Choice of Limits and AcceptanceClauses forDimensions of Bricks ... ... ... ... 64

Table 1. Standard Formats (Bricks) ... ... ... ... 17

Table 2. Standard Formats (Blocks) ... ... ... ... 17

Table 3. Dimensional Tolerances (Bricks) ... ... ... 1 8

Table 4. Dimensional Tolerances (B!ocks) ... ... ... 19

Table 5. Maximum Deviations on Dimensions 21

Table 6. Strength and Absorption ... ... 22

5

MS 76: 1972

Table 7. Standard Formats (Floor Blocks) ... ... ... 27

Table 8. Limits for Use With Gauge Board ... ... 63

Table 9. Limits for Use With Alternative Scale forGauge Board ... ... ... ... ... ... 63

Figure 1. Arrangementsfor MeasuringClay Building Bricks(a) for Length, (b) for Width, (c) for Depth ... 66

Figure 2. Determination of ‘Out of Squareness’and‘Bowing or Twisting’ of Hollow Blocks ... 67

Figure 3. Apparatus for Vacuum Absorption Test ... 68

Figure 4. Apparatus for EfliorescenceTest ... ... ... 68

Figure 5. Gauge Board for Measuring Bricks ... ... 69

Figure 6. Double Bricks Referred to in Note 3,

Clause 39 (d)(iv) ... ... ... ... ... 70

6

MS 76: 1972

Committee Representation

The Civil Engineeringand Building Construction Industry Stand-ards Committee under whose supervision this Malaysian Standardwasprepared, comprises representativesfrom the following GovernmentMinistries, trade commerceand manufacturerAssociation and scientificand professional bodies.

Association of Consulting Engineers (Malaysia)

Cement & Concrete Association, Malaysia

Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers

Institution of Engineers (Malaysia)

Institution of Surveyors, Malaysia

Malaysian Institute of Architects

Malaysian Scientific Association

Master Builders Association

Ministry of Agriculture and Lands

Ministry of Commerceand Industry

Ministry of Education

Ministry of Technology Research,& Local Government

Ministry of Works, Posts and Telecommunications(Public Works Department)

United Chambersof Commerce

University of Malaysia

7

MS 76: 1972

FOREWORD

This Malaysian Standard has been prepared under the authorityof the Civil Engineering and Building Construction Industry StandardsCommittee. It is based on BS 3921: Part 2: 1969 which has beenpublished in metric units, in view of the fact that the country iscontemplatingchanging over to metric. In the interim, however, valuesgiven in imperial units within brackets may be used. But one systemof units should be adhered to throughout for consistency, and thevalues within brackets have been extracted from the correspondingBS 3921 : 1965 which has become Part 1 of the correspondingBritishStandard.

The technical difficulties in the way of a standard which shallgive useful guidance on the quality of all the many varieties of firedclay bricks and blocks are so great that it is still not possible tospecify completely every point of importance. Nevertheless,the com-mittee consideredthat the standard should provide as much guidanceas possible, even though some of the quality clauses will require re-vision in the light of further knowledge. The main issues raised bythis standard are discussedin the following paragraphs.

Attempts to ascertain the quality of clay bricks and blocks byinfrequent sampling and testing to a specification of isolated batchesare subject to uncertainty becausethe properties of clay products, likethose of other manufacturedproducts, are liable to variations over along period, as a result of changesin the naturally variable raw materials,as well as processvariations of products made at any one time, it istherefore good manufacturing technique to sample and test productsregularly and to record the results in the form of control charts onthe principles discussed in BS 2564, ‘Control chart technique whenmanufacturing to a specification’ and in Appendices A and B. Such

8

MS 76: 1972

charts display the variation of propertieswith time and thus give moreinformation about a product than can be obtained by tests made ona single occasion. It is recommendedthat manufacturersshould maketheir control charts available for inspection by users and that usersshould recognize their value. This recommendationshall not precludeusers from taking samples in accordancewith Clauses33 and 34 fortesting in accordancewith the remaining Clauses of Chapter 3. Anysuch samples that users may require shall be taken before the bricksor blocks are built into work, especially where tests for soluble saltscontent or liability to efflorescenceare in question.

The treatmentof strength in the specific clauses reflects the fact,still not as widely appreciatedas it should be, that strength is notnecessarilyan index of durability and may be very misleading if usedas such. The main use of the strength test is as a guide to permissiblepressurein brickwork.

In the past, the permissible pressureson brickwork have beencalculated, in accordancewith British Standard CPI 11: 1948, ‘Struc-tural recommendationsfor loadbearing walls’, in terms of the meanstrength of samplesof twelve bricks taken at random and of the mortarcomposition. Variation in the strength of bricks and mortar and inworkmanship have been allowed for by using high load factors. Re-cently, calculated loadbearing brickwork has begun to be treated likeother structural engineeringmaterials and designedto finer limits. Wherethis is to be done, it is desirable that the bricks used should bemanufacturedunder a system of quality control on a sound statisticalbasis which enables the manufacturerto satisfy the user that he cansupply consignmentssuch that, when a sample is tested in accordancewith Clause 39, there is a specified probability, normally of not morethan I in 40, that the arithmetic mean of the sample will be belowa specified limit of compressivestrength.

9

MS 76: 1972

The water absorption test also is given less prominencethan hasoften been accorded to it. A low water absorption figure can be usedin defining engineering bricks and bricks for damp-proof courses butwater absorption, like strength, is not a general index of durability.With many, but not all, clays, the more durable bricks absorb lesswater than those that are not so durable, so long as a single varietyof bricks is considered. No limit can be set, however, that will dis-criminate generally between durable and non-durable bricks. Recentwork has shown that the saturation coefficient, or ratio or 24-howcold absorptionto a total absorption by the boiling or vacuum methods,is less useful as an index of durability than was formerly thought. IIhas not, therefore, been included. The vacuum method has been spe-cified as an alternative to the boiling method, since some laboratoriesregardit as more convenientand the results are approximatelyequivalent.

The method of measuring24-hour cold absorption has also beenincluded in Clause 40, since this may occasionally he found useful forworks control, but no specific requirementsbased on this test are in-cluded in Section Two of Chapter 1.

The committee has given serious consideration to the problemof framing a specification which is basedon the knowledge that brickscontaining undueamountsof calcium, magnesium,potassiumand sodiumsuiphatesare liable to produce complaints about walls built with them.The complaints may be of two kinds: sulphate expansionof Portlandcement mortar and efflorescenceon brickwork.

Although cause and effect have been established broadly, conSsiderable difficulty has arisen when trying to decide what are suitablemaximum limits for the permissible contents or calcium, magnesium,potassium,sodium and sulphate individually or in toto. In some cir-cumstancesit would appear that bricks with a total soluble sulphate

10

MS 76: 1972

content of well under 1% have given severe trouble in sulphateexpan-sion: in others, bricks with soluble salt contents of as much as threetimes this amount have been used without arousing comment. Thesame sort of evidence has been forthcoming on particular salts, e gpotassiumsulphate. For instance there has been complete absenceofcomplaintsover extendedperiods when bricks containing 0.25% solublepotassium have been used. Elsewhere trouble has arisen with brickscontaining less than 0.25%. In these circumstancesit has been con-sidered unreasonableto set a maximum of 0.25% of soluble potassiumfor bricks in general.

The explanation of this conflicting evidence remains a matterof conjecture. It is well known, for example, that for sulphate ex-pansion to occur it is necessaryto have soluble suiphates, tricalciumaluminate, and water in juxtaposition. Thus, sulphate expansion doesnot occur in brickwork where the bricks have negligible sulphatecontent,or the mortar has a low triealcium aluminate content, as in mortarmade from sulphate-resistingcement,or when water is largely excludedby sound methodsof building construction. Thus it is easy to visualizeservice and other conditions in which bricks of less salt content couldhave performed badly. There are many other factors too, which obscurethis issue.

The incidence of efflorescenceis subject to similar uncertainties.it has, however, beenobservedthat the sulphatesof sodium or magnesiumare more troublesomethan those of calcium or potassium.

Bearing all these factors in mind the committee felt that, forbricks of ordiiiary quality (Clause 3.1 (c)(ii) ), although the etilorescencetest should be retained, it could not recommend the setting of limitsfor the content of soluble salts.

11

MS 76: 1972

However, for bricks of specialquality (Clause3.! (c)(iii), for whichhigher standardsof manufacturecan be reasonablyexpected, the com-mittee felt that the maximum quantity of soluble salts permissibleshouldbe stated, although the limits must necessarilybe tentative.

The provision in Clause 3.1 (d)(i) that bricks containing up to25% of holes are to be consideredas ‘solid’ requires explanation Ithas been included becauseit is known that bricks with not more thanthis modest degree of perforation can be treated in the same way asbricks without holes when calculating permissible pressureson brick-work from the strengths of the bricks determined in accordancewithClause 39, and this artifice should ensure that such bricks are auto-matically so treated. It need not be concluded that similar relationsbetween the strength of bricks and the strength of brickwork do notsubsist when the bricks contain more than 25% of holes, but wherea designer feels any doubt it is always open to him to require testson walls in accordancewith MS * “Structural Recomniendationsfor LoadbearingWalls”. Possibly on a future revision of the codes itmay be more appropriateto deal with this situation in the code ratherthan in the standard,but on the present occasion the method adoptedhas seemedexpendient.

The method of overall measurementof 24 bricks, which wt~sused in BS 657 in checking conformity with the dimensional clausesof the standard, has been retained for standard bricks and is recom-mended for non-standardbricks.

The minimum strength for blocks for structural floors and roofs,specified in Clause 29, differs from the minimum strength specified forblocks for walling becausethe method of testing and the method ofexpressing the results are different. The limit of 14 MNIm2 (2,000

* In Preparation.

12

MS 76: 1972

lbf/in2) is one that can reasonablybe attained by most manufacturers.It is lower than the limit 17.0 MN/rn2 (2,500 lbf/in2) set in BS 1190,but it is open to the structural engineerwho wishes to take the strengthof the blocks into consideration in his design to specify a higherstrength where this is likely to be useful.

13